Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Clifford circuits Augmented Matrix Product States for fermion systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding Clifford circuits to matrix product states cuts fermionic ground-state energy error by up to a factor of four on the models tested.

desk verdict Useful extension of CAMPS to fermions, but the benchmark comparisons are weakened by an unverified grand-canonical versus canonical mismatch. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00413 v1 pith:SCNM6SUA submitted 2024-12-31 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Jiale Huang , Xiangjian Qian , Mingpu Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords CliffordcircuitsMatrixProductStatesJordan-WignertransformationfermionicsystemsHubbardmodelt-Vnon-stabilizernessentanglemententropyDMRG
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Matrix product states are a widely used tool for quantum many-body simulations, but their accuracy is limited by entanglement; Clifford circuits can absorb a large part of that entanglement while remaining classically simulable. This paper extends the CAMPS ansatz, an MPS dressed by Clifford circuits, to fermionic systems by first mapping fermions to spins with the Jordan-Wigner transformation, and shows that it outperforms plain MPS on the spinless $t$-$V$ model and the Hubbard model. The improvement grows with interaction strength and with bond dimension, reaching a relative-error ratio of about four for the $8\times8$, $V=3$ case. If the claim holds, fermionic CAMPS offers a more accurate route to strongly correlated fermion ground states at fixed computational cost.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CAMPS wavefunction $|\mathrm{CAMPS}\rangle = C|\mathrm{MPS}\rangle$, in which a Clifford circuit $C$ acts on an ordinary matrix product state. Clifford circuits are the named machinery: they are generated by gates such as Hadamard, phase, and CNOT, and by the Gottesman-Knill theorem they can be simulated efficiently on a classical computer even though they create large amounts of entanglement. The Jordan-Wigner transformation carries the fermion problem into this spin language, turning fermionic creation and annihilation operators into strings of Pauli operators, and the 2D lattice is snaked into a 1D chain for the mapping. Because Clifford conjugation sends Pauli strings to Pauli strings, the transformed observable $O' = C^\dagger O C$ has the same structure as $O$, so measurements remain efficient; the MPS then needs to represent only the non-stabilizerness part of the entanglement. A slightly modified two-site DMRG algorithm optimizes the MPS tensors, the local Clifford gates, and the circuit layout together.

What would settle it

Re-run the benchmarks with the particle number fixed exactly in the CAMPS optimization; if the roughly fourfold error reduction for the $8\times8$, $V=3$ $t$-$V$ model disappears or shrinks, the reported gain is at least partly due to particle-number flexibility rather than to Clifford augmentation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the entanglement that makes fermionic tensor-network simulations difficult can be split into a part that Clifford circuits absorb and a residual part that the MPS must carry. After a Jordan-Wigner mapping, the ansatz is $|\mathrm{CAMPS}\rangle = C|\mathrm{MPS}\rangle$, where $C$ is a Clifford circuit; because Clifford circuits send Pauli strings to Pauli strings, expectation values of observables stay cheap to evaluate. Benchmarking against large-bond-dimension DMRG references, the paper finds that CAMPS reduces the relative ground-state energy error compared with MPS for every system and interaction strength tested, with the reduction growing at stronger interactions and larger bond dimension. For the $8\times8$, $V=3$ $t$-$V$ model the error ratio is about four, and the entanglement entropy carried by the MPS part is consistently lower.

Load-bearing premise

The main comparison assumes that adjusting a chemical potential puts the CAMPS calculation at exactly the same number of particles as the reference DMRG calculation, so the two energies describe the same physical state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed bond dimension, CAMPS returns lower ground-state energy errors than MPS on the $t$-$V$ and Hubbard models, so a target accuracy can be reached with a smaller bond dimension and lower computational cost.
  • The accuracy gain grows with interaction strength, making the method most useful in the strongly correlated regime where plain MPS struggles.
  • The consistent reduction of entanglement entropy in the MPS part indicates the improvement comes from restructuring the ansatz rather than from a single favorable energy estimate.
  • Because the Clifford dressing is compatible with time-dependent variational principle and finite-temperature extensions of CAMPS, the same fermionic mapping can be carried into time evolution and finite-temperature simulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A fair check of the benchmarks would be to report the mean and variance of the particle number in the converged CAMPS state, since the comparison assumes the tuned chemical potential reproduces the reference filling exactly.
  • If the error reduction persists when particle number is fixed exactly, fermionic CAMPS could serve as a cross-check for other methods on doped Hubbard cylinders, where ground-state energies are difficult to converge.
  • Switching from the Jordan-Wigner mapping to a more local fermion-to-spin mapping, such as the Bravyi-Kitaev transformation, could reduce the nonlocal string operators and may make the residual MPS entanglement even smaller.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the Clifford-augmented matrix product state (CAMPS) method to fermionic systems by mapping fermions to spins via the Jordan-Wigner transformation. It benchmarks the resulting method on the spinless t-V model at half-filling on 6x6 and 8x8 lattices and on the Hubbard model at 1/8 hole doping on 1x32, 2x16, and 4x8 lattices, using large-bond-dimension DMRG energies as references. The reported results show that CAMPS reduces the relative energy error relative to plain MPS at the same bond dimension, with the improvement growing with interaction strength, and that the entanglement entropy of the MPS part is reduced. The central claim is that fermionic CAMPS significantly improves accuracy over MPS and may become a useful tool for strongly correlated fermion systems.

Significance. If the accuracy claim survives scrutiny, this is a useful and timely extension of an already published method: the Clifford augmentation strategy is established, and a fermionic version broadens its applicability to Hubbard-like models. The paper is clearly written and the benchmark data are extensive, including several system sizes and interaction strengths. The main weakness is that the comparison with the DMRG references is made in the grand-canonical ensemble while the references appear to be canonical fixed-particle-number energies; the manuscript does not report the chemical potentials, achieved particle numbers, or particle-number fluctuations. Because the improvement ratio is computed from precisely these energy differences, the quantitative claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3), Hubbard model section, Conclusion] The central benchmark is not well-defined as stated. The text says, after Eq. (3), "Since U(1) symmetry is not imposed in the Clifford circuits, a chemical potential term is included, which is tuned to target the desired filling factor," and the Conclusion repeats that "all the calculations in this work are in the grand-canonical ensemble." Table I, however, labels the Hubbard reference values as "ground state energy" without specifying whether they are internal energies E, grand potentials Omega = E - mu N, total values, or per-site values. The relative energy errors in Fig. 4 are computed against this reference. A grand-canonical variational state can lower Omega through particle-number fluctuations without having a more accurate fixed-N physical energy, so the claimed improvement ratio may be an artifact of comparing a variational Omega with a canonical E. To support the central claim, the authors must report, for every data point, the chemical potential mu used, the achieved average particle number <N>, and the variance <(N-<N>)^2>, and either impose U(1) symmetry in the variational state or compare against a grand-canonical DMRG reference at the same mu.
  2. [t-V model section and Figs. 2-3] The same grand-canonical issue affects the t-V benchmarks. The Hamiltonian in Eq. (5) has no chemical potential term and the reference energies in Table I are for half-filling, but the CAMPS calculations are performed without imposing U(1) symmetry. Even if mu=0 is used, the optimized CAMPS state can have particle-number fluctuations around half-filling, and the reference is a canonical half-filled DMRG state. The manuscript does not report <N> or its variance for the t-V calculations. Since the improvement ratio in Figs. 2-3 is defined as (E_MPS - E_ref)/(E_CAMPS - E_ref), any lowering of the CAMPS energy due to grand-canonical number fluctuations will directly inflate the reported ratio. The authors should either report the achieved particle-number statistics or justify that half-filling and mu=0 preclude a bias.
  3. [Figs. 2-4 and Table I] The quantitative claim of a factor-of-four improvement rests on differences of very small energies, but no error bars or reference uncertainties are reported. For the largest bond dimensions the plotted relative errors approach 10^-6, and the reference energies in Table I are obtained by extrapolation in truncation error. The manuscript states that the listed significant digits are checked by extrapolation but does not give the extrapolation uncertainty or explain how it compares with the plotted variational errors. Without this information, the reader cannot judge whether the reported ratios are statistically meaningful, especially at large D where E_MPS - E_ref and E_CAMPS - E_ref are both close to the reference precision.
  4. [Hubbard model section and Fig. 4] The target doping is 1/8 hole doping, but because the calculation is grand-canonical and U(1) symmetry is not imposed, the filling is controlled only indirectly through mu. For finite systems with open boundary conditions, the achieved average filling can differ from the target, and the difference can vary with bond dimension as the variational state improves. The manuscript does not report the achieved filling for any bond dimension. The authors should provide a table or plot of <N> versus D for each Hubbard system and explain how closely the target 1/8 doping is reached in both MPS and CAMPS calculations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] There is a typo: "calcualtions" should be "calculations," and the phrase "spin one" should be "spin system" or "spin-1/2 system."
  2. [Table I] Please state explicitly whether the listed reference energies are total energies or per-site energies, and whether they are internal energies or grand potentials. The magnitudes of the Hubbard entries—around -1.7 to -2.1 for 32-site systems—suggest per-site values, but the text calls them "ground state energy" without qualification.
  3. [Figure captions] The relative energy error is defined only in the captions of Figs. 2-4, and the axis label "Relative error (Energy)" is ambiguous. The definition should be given in the main text, and the figure axes should specify which energy (E or Omega) is used.
  4. [Section 2 and Eq. (3)] For reproducibility, it would be helpful to provide the explicit Jordan-Wigner transformed Hamiltonians for the 2D snake-like mapping used here, or at least to state that they are generated automatically from Eq. (2). The current text says the transformations are "readily obtained," but a concrete example for a nearest-neighbor hopping term on a 2D lattice would remove ambiguity about boundary terms and string operators.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CAMPS energy improvement is empirically benchmarked against independent DMRG references, not derived from the ansatz definition.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmark: CAMPS reduces the variational energy error relative to fixed DMRG reference energies for the t-V and Hubbard models. This claim is not derived from the CAMPS ansatz alone; although the CAMPS variational family contains plain MPS (taking the Clifford circuit to be the identity), the quantitative improvement ratios (e.g., factor ~4 for 8x8 V=3) and their growth with interaction strength are results of the numerical optimizations, not consequences of the definitions. The method is imported from the authors' prior PRL [21] and the NsEE diagnostic from [27], but these are peer-reviewed, published results and are here validated against external DMRG references; the self-citations are not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the numerical outcomes. The concluding remark that all calculations are grand-canonical and U(1) symmetry is not imposed is an acknowledged limitation: if the achieved average particle number differs from the fixed particle number of the reference states, the energy comparison could be biased, but this would be a benchmark-comparability or correctness issue, not a circularity, since no reported quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict. No equation reduces to another by construction in a way that pre-determines the paper's conclusions. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on the existing CAMPS ansatz, the exact Jordan-Wigner mapping, the Gottesman-Knill theorem, and the assumption that the DMRG references are accurate. The only fitted parameter explicitly mentioned is the chemical potential used to target filling, which is not reported quantitatively.

free parameters (1)
  • chemical potential mu = not reported (tuned to target filling)
    Used to target the desired filling factor since U(1) symmetry is not imposed in the Clifford circuits; actual values are not listed in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation maps fermionic operators to spin operators exactly.
    Used in Eq. (2) to convert the fermionic Hamiltonian into a spin Hamiltonian that CAMPS can handle.
  • standard math Gottesman-Knill theorem allows efficient classical simulation of Clifford circuits.
    Basis for the claim that Clifford circuits can handle large entanglement efficiently; cited from refs. [23-25].
  • domain assumption The CAMPS variational ansatz, with jointly optimized MPS and Clifford circuits, is a valid ground-state approximation.
    Taken from prior work (ref. [21]); this paper does not re-derive the optimization procedure.
  • domain assumption Reference DMRG energies from large bond dimensions are converged enough to serve as exact ground-state energies.
    Table I gives references with asserted convergence via truncation-error extrapolation, but no error bars are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clifford circuits Augmented Matrix Product States for fermion systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCNM6SUA

@misc{pith2026250100413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clifford circuits Augmented Matrix Product States for fermion systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCNM6SUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00413}
}
abstract

Clifford circuits Augmented Matrix Product States (CAMPS) was recently proposed to leverage the advantages of both Clifford circuits and Matrix Product States (MPS). Clifford circuits can support large entanglement and can be efficiently simulated classically according to the Gottesman-Knill theorem. So in CAMPS, MPS needs only to handle the so-called Non-stabilizerness Entanglement Entropy which significantly improves the simulation accuracy for a given bond dimension. In this work, we generalize CAMPS to study the Fermion system by taking advantage of the Jordan-Wigner transformation which can map the studied Fermion system to a spin system. We benchmark the method on both the spinless $t-V$ model and the spinful Hubbard model. Our test results show significant improvement of the accuracy of CAMPS over MPS, especially when the interactions are strong. Fermionic CAMPS provides a useful tool for the accurate study of many-body fermion systems in the future and has the potential to help resolve long-standing issues.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An illustration of the Jordan-Wigner transformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Results of 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Similar as Fig. 2. Results for 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Clifford-Dressed Variational Principles for Precise Loschmidt Echoes

    quant-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors adapt Clifford-dressed TDVP to compute MPS-stabilizer overlaps, extending the time range of Loschmidt echo simulations at fixed bond dimension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature su- perconductors, Rev

    E. Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 763 (1994)

    1994

  2. [2]

    M. Qin, T. Sch¨ afer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The hubbard model: A computational perspec- tive, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 275 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The hubbard model, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Quantum monte carlo methods for nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1067 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Ra- jagopal, Quantum monte carlo simulations of solids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 33 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozen- berg, Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Electronic struc- ture calculations with dynamical mean-field theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 865 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Knizia and G

    G. Knizia and G. K.-L. Chan, Density matrix embed- ding: A simple alternative to dynamical mean-field the- ory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 186404 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renor- malization (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    T. Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renor- malization (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bu- lik, G. K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, E. Kozik, X.-W. Liu, A. J. Millis, N. V. Prokof´ ev, M. Qin, G. E. Scuseria, H. Shi, B. V. Svistunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. S. Tupitsy...

    2015

  5. [13]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  6. [14]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for Quantum-Many Body Systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv e-prints , cond-mat/0407066 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Evenbly and G

    G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Entanglement renormalization in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 180406 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Vidal, Entanglement renormalization, Phys

    G. Vidal, Entanglement renormalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 220405 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, J. F. Yu, X. Kong, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Tensor renormalization of quantum many- body systems using projected entangled simplex states, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011025 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Tensor network algorithms: A route map, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 173 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Anders, M

    S. Anders, M. B. Plenio, W. D¨ ur, F. Verstraete, and H.-J. Briegel, Ground-state approximation for strongly inter- acting spin systems in arbitrary spatial dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 107206 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Augmenting density ma- trix renormalization group with clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 190402 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Qian and M

    X. Qian and M. Qin, Augmenting density matrix renor- malization group with disentanglers, Chinese Physics Letters 40, 057102 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052 [quant-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Anders and H

    S. Anders and H. J. Briegel, Fast simulation of stabilizer circuits using a graph-state representation, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022334 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Qian, and M. Qin, Non-stabilizerness en- tanglement entropy: a measure of hardness in the clas- sical simulation of quantum many-body systems (2024), 6 arXiv:2409.16895 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070601 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimiza- tion with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 165116 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Clifford circuits augmented time-dependent variational principle (2024), arXiv:2407.03202 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. F. Mello, A. Santini, G. Lami, J. D. Nardis, and M. Collura, Clifford dressed time-dependent variational principle (2024), arXiv:2407.01692 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Augmenting finite tem- perature tensor network with clifford circuits (2024), arXiv:2410.15709 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. Fan, X. Qian, H.-C. Zhang, R.-Z. Huang, M. Qin, and T. Xiang, Disentangling critical quantum spin chains with clifford circuits (2024), arXiv:2411.12683 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. Frau, P. Sonya Tarabunga, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dalmonte, Stabilizer disentangling of conformal field theories, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.11720 (2024), arXiv:2411.11720 [quant-ph]

    2024

  27. [35]

    Qin, C.-M

    M. Qin, C.-M. Chung, H. Shi, E. Vitali, C. Hubig, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. R. White, and S. Zhang (Simons Col- laboration on the Many-Electron Problem), Absence of superconductivity in the pure two-dimensional hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031016 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Zheng, C.-M

    B.-X. Zheng, C.-M. Chung, P. Corboz, G. Ehlers, M.-P. Qin, R. M. Noack, H. Shi, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Stripe order in the underdoped region of the two-dimensional hubbard model, Science 358, 1155 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aam7127

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Xu, C.-M

    H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Coexistence of superconductivity with par- tially filled stripes in the hubbard model, Science 384, eadh7691 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Jiang, J

    Y.-F. Jiang, J. Zaanen, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Ground state phase diagram of the doped hub- bard model on the four-leg cylinder, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033073 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  32. [40]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Annals of Physics 298, 210–226 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Parella-Dilm´ e, K

    T. Parella-Dilm´ e, K. Kottmann, L. Zambrano, L. Mor- timer, J. S. Kottmann, and A. Ac ´ ın, Reducing entan- glement with physically inspired fermion-to-qubit map- pings, PRX Quantum 5, 030333 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quan- tum circuit learning, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    I. O. Sokolov, W. Dobrautz, H. Luo, A. Alavi, and I. Tav- ernelli, Orders of magnitude increased accuracy for quan- tum many-body problems on quantum computers via an exact transcorrelated method, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023174 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    M. T. Fishman and S. R. White, Compression of correla- tion matrices and an efficient method for forming matrix product states of fermionic gaussian states, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075132 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations in effective model spaces: Hamiltonian-learning variational quantum eigensolver using digital quantum computers and application to the lipkin-meshkov-glick model, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024313 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    G. Lami, T. Haug, and J. De Nardis, Quantum State Designs with Clifford Enhanced Matrix Prod- uct States, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.18751 (2024), arXiv:2404.18751 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Corboz, R

    P. Corboz, R. Or´ us, B. Bauer, and G. Vidal, Simula- tion of strongly correlated fermions in two spatial di- mensions with fermionic projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 81, 165104 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Stokes, J

    J. Stokes, J. R. Moreno, E. A. Pnevmatikakis, and G. Carleo, Phases of two-dimensional spinless lattice fermions with first-quantized deep neural-network quan- tum states, Phys. Rev. B 102, 205122 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Haegeman, The SU(2) symmetry code is developed with TensorKit package at https://github.com/Jutho/TensorKit.jl

    J. Haegeman, The SU(2) symmetry code is developed with TensorKit package at https://github.com/Jutho/TensorKit.jl

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.